It is the case of the petitioners that in the year 1994, the Government thought of constructing a Stadium at Hujra Shah Muqeem, Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara. To implement that proposal and plan a survey was conducted. The land of the petitioner measuring 19 Kanals, 6 Marlas was also proposed to be utilized. Statedly, the petitioners agreed for giving their land subject to the grant of alternate land. An exchange is said to have been agreed between the District Administration and the petitioners, but was not given effect to in the Revenue Record despite the affirmative report by the filed staff to this effect. The jurisdiction of this Court thus has been invoked under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, with the prayer that "the respondent No,3 may kindly be directed to pass mutation of the land in question in accordance with the report "Annex.F" forthwith and that the" respondent may very kindly be directed to refund the lease amount to the extent of 36 Kanals, 2 Marlas and they may very kindly be granted to pay compensation of standing crops, building and tube-well to the petitioners without any further delay."
2. The report was sent for from the respondents which have been received. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General has been heard in the matter.
3. In the report and parawise comments submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Okara, the position taken is that "land of the petitioner measuring 19 Kanals and 16 Marlas was acquired for the construction of stadium in the public interest, but there is nothing in the record to show as to whether any commitment of providing alternate land or compensation with regard to the standing crops etc. Was ever made by the competent authority. However, the claim of the petitioners for the grant of alternate land in lieu of his ownership appears to be justified." In a latter report dated 16-6- 1998 submitted before this Court it was stated by the Deputy Commissioner, Okara that despite his efforts, the Board of Revenue had declined to allot any land in exchange of the land of the petitioners. It was thus that report from the Board of Revenue was solicited, who, however, was of the view that the petitioners should get in touch with the Punjab Sports Board for finalizing the acquisition proceedings and compensation to be determined by the District Collector. The crux of the matter is that land owned by the petitioners was utilized for the construction of the stadium without following due course i,e, acquisition under the law. They would not have parted with their land but for the understanding for the alternate land to be given to them, which assertion of their finds support from report Annex:F. Whereas the petitioners acted with somewhat generosity in the public interest and for public purpose similar reciprocity was expected from the State functionaries which the record does not show. Suffice it to observe that every citizen has the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property in any part of the country as per Article 23 of the Constitution. Article 24 of the Constitution envisages and ensures protection of property. The relevant part whereof reads as follows:-- "Protection of property rights.--- (1) No person shall be compulsorily deprived of his property save in accordance with law.
(2) No property shall be compulsorily acquired or taken possession of save for a public purpose, and save by the authority of law which provides for compensation thereof and either fixes the amount of compensation or specifies the principles on and the manner in which compensation is to be determined and given." ' admittedly, no such course was adopted nor process followed in taking over the property owned by the petitioners. They were paid no compensation whatsoever for the same. The Deputy Commissioner being an important part of the Governmental machinery at the District level had recommended the case of the petitioners. The petitioners had been clamouring that there were understanding and promise held out to them for alternate land to be given in lieu of their land used for the construction of the stadium. The Board of Revenue, however, by taking purely an unrealistic and technical view, has not accommodated them. The Board of Revenue ought to have taken steps and devised ways and means for redressing the grievance of the petitioners and set right the anomalous situation faced by them. It cannot be conceived that the Board of Revenue would be helpless in resolving such an issue. Needless to observe that the public functionaries are bestowed with necessary powers and authority to alleviate the problems of the citizens and to redress their grievance. It is, therefore, considered just and proper that the matter is entrusted to the Board of Revenue in the Colonies Department for resolving this matter. Let the petitioners enter appearance before respondent No,7, on 7-4-2003, who is expected to consider their grievance in a just and fair manner, expeditiously.
' The petition is disposed of accordingly in terms of the above observations and directions. No order as to costs.